TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
You are correct but Leclerc is a 3 man crew.
Yet you have to consider that those other tanks tend to focus only on forward armor
Yet you have to consider that those other tanks tend to focus only on forward armor
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Something else to point out here is we have been using known data or estimates off the M1A2 SEP2 (here to for I will refer to as M1A2B)
This is Not the latest variant merely the one in Service. The latest variant would be M1A2C (formerly called M1A2 Sep3) Abrams data changes with versions as it is like the Type 99 still evolving, and it is estimated as about 73 tons as such would be the heaviest yet.
You guys are not taking into account where armour is placed and the total volume of a tank in extrapolating protection from total weight alone. M1 is much larger in dimension and volume than Type 99A and it has heavier engine, equipment (to accommodate the fourth person etc), and side armour. I would imagine that the M1A2 not only has thicker sided armour than 99A, but also top, bottom, and rear armour. Therefore it is very possible the 99A's frontal protection (where pretty much all its protection efforts are spent) is WAY in excess of an un-ERAed M1A2. M1A2 can take on ERA but it is already heavy enough for most battlefields without it therefore they do not bother. If they are fighting in a terrain that allows for 70+ tonne tanks and they don't mind the already abysmal range of the M1, then they will put on those ERAs IF the nominal armour is not already enough.
99A should easily have better than 1000mm protection from frontal arc if M1A2 is 940mm. After all the 99A puts a great deal of all available armour at the front. Where the M1 spreads it a little bit more than the 99A. All while the M1 is larger in volume and likely has heavier total equipment. If the "physics" are more or less equal, we can probably quantify 99A based on what is known about thickness distribution using M1 as example. It's basic maths but highly inaccurate speculation. Don't forget we don't really know the capability of Type 99A's ERA even if we assume they are based off some previous generation Russian ERA used on latest T-90s. What is almost certain is within 1km, 99A should easily punch through M1 from all direction except frontal arc and M1 can easily do the same to 99A. Which gun and FCS does a better job determines which one gets hit first. Frontal arc ERA on Type 99A is key in figuring out whether latest M1's sabot round designed to defeat Russian ERA can do its job against an unknown Chinese ERA likely based off Russian ones.
99A should easily have better than 1000mm protection from frontal arc if M1A2 is 940mm. After all the 99A puts a great deal of all available armour at the front. Where the M1 spreads it a little bit more than the 99A. All while the M1 is larger in volume and likely has heavier total equipment. If the "physics" are more or less equal, we can probably quantify 99A based on what is known about thickness distribution using M1 as example. It's basic maths but highly inaccurate speculation. Don't forget we don't really know the capability of Type 99A's ERA even if we assume they are based off some previous generation Russian ERA used on latest T-90s. What is almost certain is within 1km, 99A should easily punch through M1 from all direction except frontal arc and M1 can easily do the same to 99A. Which gun and FCS does a better job determines which one gets hit first. Frontal arc ERA on Type 99A is key in figuring out whether latest M1's sabot round designed to defeat Russian ERA can do its job against an unknown Chinese ERA likely based off Russian ones.
Last edited:
Love how you just totally ignored my post. If the presented information is legit, the turret cheek KE resistance is given to be around 700-800 mm RHAe not 1000 mm RHAe from the front. I see a lot of US/British/German (or insert any other nation) fanboys on the internet that just ignore data if it contradicts their views on a particular vehicle even if there are multiple sources that can not be easily dismissed.
Also, the protection scheme of the Abrams and pretty much any other modern main battle tank is focused on the protection in the frontal 60 degree arc of the vehicle primarily.
The turret roof and the side hull of the Abrams are not any thicker than that of the Type 99A for the most part.
Anyway, the M1A2 SEP (V1) tank has a weight of 63,1 metric tons. Some US documents on weight of the SEP V2 put it up to 65 metric tons fully equipped. It seems that a lot of people are confusing US units with metric units.
Here are some more weights of tanks in metric units:
Challenger 2 = 62,5 t (with ROMOR ERA = 65 t)
Leclerc Serie 2 = 56,5 t
Leclerc XXI = 57,3 t
Leopard 2A4 = 55-56.5 t
Leopard 2A5 = 59,9 t
Leopard 2A6M = 62 t
Leopard 2A7+ = 67,5 t
K1A1 = 53,1 - 54,5 t
K2 = 55 t
Type 99A = 58 t
Merkava 4 = 68-71 t
M1 = 54,5 t
M1A1 = 59,1 t
M1A1 HA = 61,3 t
Type 90 = 50,3 t
Mate I didn't read your post. I didn't really care about the last few pages and only skimmed through it. My post can be summarised as such; one cannot make any grand conclusions about armour effectiveness based on direct scaling of total weight. I don't care for this debate and arguing about claimed effectiveness. All I wanted to refute is that comparison. It IS possible Type 99A's effectiveness is around 1000mm as claimed by whoever made that claim. You certainly don't know. I don't either... but saying (may not have been you but this was mentioned) 99A at 58T or whatever it is, cannot possibly have equal armour effectiveness as M1A2 at 68T or whatever it is. This is ridiculous because they DO NOT place armour in the same layout nor do they even use the same composition or have the same total volume. Speculation ends there.
If you think 99A is as thick or thicker in other non-frontal areas, prove it. I believe otherwise but could be completely wrong. So our views differ here but here's my "evidence". Looking at hatch of 99 tanks, there's hardly any room for tapering sided armour to be much thicker than the distance between hatch edge and outer surface. It is paper thin because it doesn't need to be a millimeter thicker. A anti-tank shot to the side is 100% penetration even if they doubled the thickness and halved the range. It's all a very simple game of optimising for a particular terrain and fighting style. Tanks are simple low end tech nowadays.
The side that can win a tank on tank only war is the side that can retool and adapt faster. All tanks are more or less equally good and shit overall. Some are better for certain terrains and engagements than others. Now factor in the huge network of other military assets and include strategy. It makes sense that whoever learns how to improve their methods and equipment will win. Doesn't matter what you start with, the important thing is to have the right tank designing and building industry. Arguably the greatest downfall of Chinese tanking is the supposed lower quality ammunition, IF that is true. It's also true that the FCS of Type 96 series is lesser than 99's and almost definitely not as competent as Abrams'. I remember reading up engagement ranges and hit probability and MOA of some NATO exercises in the past and they are more than slightly more impressive than the 96's performance at tank biathlons although that is hardly a fair comparison or even completely accurate.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
I have yet to see any definitive evidence that these tanks's designs putting all their focus on forward armor. And in any case, that is a rather standard design philosophy, the Abrahams too puts an emphasis on its frontal armor as well.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Actually, the gas turbine engine the M1A1 use is by no means any more heavier than a standard diesel engine. In fact the ATG1500 weights in at 1.1 tons which is actually 400 kgs lighter than the [/URL]engine used by the T-14. Equipment wise apart from the extra accommodation for the loader. The M1A2's loadout is not much different compared to the 99A. It does not carry anything substantially more fancy than what can be seen on the 99A
And a tank's weight does not necessarily define it's mobility in all terrains. that falls mainly on the tracks. Thanks to its wide tracks, the Abrahams actually exerts less pressure per square feet than a fully equipped soldier. Certainly there will be bridges that won't take that weight but that is more the concern of the army's logistical/engineering corps instead.
And finally for all of the talk of the Abrahams having thicker side armor than the 99A, while that may be possible. It does not automatically mean that the frontal armor will be reduced in turn. In fact the Abraham puts emphasis on frontal armor protection, which is a standard design philosophy for all tanks
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
426 km is hardly abysmal.
People get funny ideas about has turbine engines. Like the other claim about weight the AGT1500 is 1134kg. The MTU 883 Europower pack it's equal and conventional type is 2400kg Ukraine claims there 6UTD-3 is 1210kg and that's a brand new design.Viktor Jav is right on this.
One of the reasons why Abrams was designed around the has turbine was power to weight same reason the Russians chose one for T80.
That turbine may have it's sins but it's power output vs weight is impressive.
D